Next steps for scenarios 9 February 2017 We ended last year talking about scenarios, and that’s what we’ll pick up on again today and get into real detail about over the next two meetings It’s pretty critical that you’re all feeling well acquainted and comfortable with this as the scenarios will set up the work for the rest of the year… Today we’re putting to you a proposal for the way ahead, a revised framework for the scenarios based on our conversations at the end of 2016 and together new technical input from the modellers in the CMP. The aim of this presentation is to seek feedback and ultimately to get agreement on a scenario framework. After that, at the next meetings, we’ll work on putting the content into this framework. Source: http://365wellywalks.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/21-te-aro-piko-pathway.html

Outline What’s the purpose of scenarios? Scenario work so far What’s been happening in 2017? Proposed scenarios framework Scenarios and place (Ned) Scenario activities (after dinner) STOP! Before we go any further though, can anyone tell us why we’re using scenarios again?

Scenarios help… Create information for your WIP deliberations and decision-making Explore management options you’re interested in (and some that you’re not!) With model approach = consistent way of looking at the future, across all values Ultimately this is all about creating information to help you make decisions in the WIP on. Contributes information for both the decisions on the methods and policy approaches you’ll put into the WIP, and the objectives the WIP will be aiming to achieve. Testing the scenarios might include things you’re interested in seeing in the ultimate decision, and some that you may not. Why test things you’re not comfortable with? You may not actually know what you’ll get, particularly through time See which options works best (or worst) Because you’ll be asked ‘why didn’t you test...?’ Because of the way it’s all put together (single modelling architecture, consolidated list of attributes, identified places in the catchment you’ll report at), produces a consistent way of looking at impacts across all values and into the future NOTE: the scenario packages are not policy packages and may or may not represent what you’ll actually land on in your WIP. In fact, you may pick and mix from within multiple scenarios etc

Scenarios testing of management options High level objectives Last year we introduced this slide (explain) The values to methods really form the key parts of the NPS-FM and the Whaitua Implementation Programme we’ll be landing at the end of the year. But remember the ‘messier reality’ from last year? It’s hard to move from values and attributes to landing objectives when you don’t really know what we’ll get when we keep managing things the way we currently do, or the way that we might. Scenario development and testing provides information to help us land the rest of the path Note too that the attributes are the measures by which we test how the catchment and it’s people fare in the scenarios How scenarios fit in

Gold, silver, bronze scenarios with management options Scenario work so far Where did we land at the end of last year: three different pieces of work, but all of which provide great material for this next stage. Characterise each briefly Lots of questions came up: What can modelling usefully test? both within a working group’s area, and between working group What’s the best way of putting things together? Is our data and model architecture suitable? Agreement for PT to do more work with modellers and WWL 6 narrative scenarios Gold, silver, bronze scenarios with management options Management options

What’s been happening in 2017? Tranquil Waters modelling meeting CMP/WWL/Project team meeting Reviewed working group scenario material Examined Committee questions Raised ideas for new framework Project team: weaving ideas together

Advice from 2017 work: Management options all make sense Very few can’t be modelled Alternative approach for some options? ‘Urban development area’ could be used as starting point for framework Options can be tested in an ‘additive way’ Model assumes all practices are adopted Coming out of the meetings with modellers, here’s some key feedback on the scenarios work so far: Management options all make sense Very few can’t be modelled – and where there are some more novel approaches, the modellers can make assumptions… Alternative approach for some – e.g. improving site practice or trade waste – analysis of the likely gain could be done… e.g. WWTP discharge – analysis outside of the larger model?? ‘Urban development area’ could be used as starting point Options can be tested in an ‘additive way’ – you can look at what change you’re getting from what option… Assumes practices are achieved - Analysis of likely success post-scenarios?

Proposed scenario framework See handout… Framework is based on changing two key variables – the area over which development occurs and changing the practice around activities that impact water. Holds one variable constant while changing the other. Development area – about where GROWTH occurs – i.e. what land changes to urban or intensifies as urban? Point to language – changed a bit, would like to be consistent. How does ‘water sensitive’ feel? How does ‘development area’ feel? Population growth assumed to be the same as BAU for all scenarios, therefore affects density of ‘restricting’ and ‘expanding growth’ areas Some options would be tested outside framework 2 practice changes, rather than 3 Scenario 9 exception explain

What are ‘development areas’? Existing growth: development areas in district plans Identified further growth: all ‘existing growth’, plus likely areas ‘Restricting’ and ‘Expanding growth’: Based on ‘further growth’ area TBC by Committee with technical input

What are ‘development areas’? Existing growth Non-urban land Expanding growth Urban land Identified further growth Restricting growth Scenarios 1, 5, 9 Scenarios 2, 6, 10 Scenarios 3, 7, 11 Scenarios 4, 8, 12 Take you through a hypothetical approach first…

DRAFT Identified further growth Existing growth Indicative only - Judgeford Structure Plan area Identified further growth This map shows… Some examples of ‘existing’ and ‘identified further’ growth – PT will develop the definitive map Will use these areas as basis for the ‘restricting’ and ‘expanding’ growth areas that the Committee will decide on Existing growth

What does ‘practice’ mean? Rural, urban development and stormwater and wastewater management options ‘Current’ existing practice, policy and investment (i.e. BAU) ‘Improved’ and ‘Water sensitive’ TBC by Committee with technical input Management options to material already explored in depth in Working Groups.

Examples of ‘practice’ change What is ‘improved’ and ‘water sensitive’ practice? # wastewater network overflows per year? extent revegetation for sediment management? extent imperviousness in new development? Technical advice to back fill with management options

Next meetings Follow up on today’s work Start filling in the content: What are ‘improved’ and ‘water sensitive’ practices? What are the delineations and densities of the ‘restricted’ and ‘expanded areas’? Scenarios to modellers by March

High level objectives – June 2016